大学生心理弹性与心理健康症状的关联模式：性别差异视角的实证分析

Association Patterns between Psychological Resilience and Mental Health Symptoms in College Students: An Empirical Analysis from the Perspective of Gender Differences

摘要: 目的：系统考察大学生心理弹性(RISC)与心理健康症状(SCL-90)的性别差异特征及两者的关联模式，并检验心理症状对心理弹性的预测作用及性别的调节效应。方法：采用整群抽样法，使用心理弹性量表和症状自评量表对11,407名在校大学生进行问卷调查，运用独立样本t检验、Pearson相关分析和多元线性回归分析进行数据处理。结果：(1) 男性在RISC总分及能力、情感管理、接受变化、控制四个因子上的得分显著高于女性(P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.10~0.24)，女性在SCL-90总分及强迫、人际敏感、抑郁、焦虑、恐怖五个因子上的得分显著高于男性(P < 0.001, |d| = 0.11~0.17)。(2) RISC各维度与SCL-90各维度之间普遍呈显著负相关(r = −0.10~−0.41, P < 0.01)。(3) 抑郁和人际敏感是心理弹性最有力的负向预测因子，SCL-90各因子对情感管理的解释率最高(R² = 0.178)，对精神影响的解释率最低(R² = 0.068)。(4) 控制心理健康症状后，性别仍显著预测心理弹性(β = 0.042, P < 0.001)。(5) 分性别回归分析显示，SCL-90各因子对男性心理弹性的解释率(R² = 0.181)高于女性(R² = 0.146)，但预测因子的相对重要性在两性间高度一致。结论：心理弹性与心理健康症状之间存在密切的负向关联，抑郁和人际敏感是最核心的预测因子。心理弹性存在“男性优势”模式，但效应量较小，两性在精神影响因子上水平相当。心理症状对男性心理弹性的解释力更强，提示两性在弹性保护机制上可能存在本质差异。研究结果对大学生心理健康教育的性别针对性干预具有参考价值。

Abstract: Objective: To systematically investigate the gender differences in psychological resilience (RISC) and mental health symptoms (SCL-90) among college students, explore their association patterns, and examine the predictive effects of psychological symptoms on resilience and the moderating role of gender. Methods: Using the cluster sampling method, 11,407 college students were surveyed with the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (RISC) and the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90). Independent samples t-tests, Pearson correlation analysis, and multiple linear regression analysis were conducted. Results: (1) Males scored significantly higher than females on RISC total score and four factors including competence, emotion regulation, acceptance of change, and control (P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.10~0.24); females scored significantly higher than males on SCL-90 total score and five factors including obsessive-compulsive, interpersonal sensitivity, depression, anxiety, and phobic anxiety (P < 0.001, |d| = 0.11~0.17). (2) RISC dimensions were significantly negatively correlated with SCL-90 dimensions (r = −0.10 to −0.41, P < 0.01). (3) Depression and interpersonal sensitivity were the strongest negative predictors of psychological resilience; SCL-90 factors explained the most variance in emotion regulation (R² = 0.178) and the least in spiritual influence (R² = 0.068). (4) After controlling for mental health symptoms, gender still significantly predicted psychological resilience (β = 0.042, P < 0.001). (5) Gender-specific regression analyses revealed that SCL-90 factors explained more variance in resilience for males (R² = 0.181) than for females (R² = 0.146), while the relative importance of predictors was highly consistent across genders. Conclusion: There exists a close negative association between psychological resilience and mental health symptoms, with depression and interpersonal sensitivity being the core predictors. A “male advantage” pattern in psychological resilience is observed, but with small effect sizes; both genders show comparable levels on the spiritual influence dimension. Psychological symptoms demonstrate stronger explanatory power for resilience in males, suggesting potential fundamental differences in resilience protection mechanisms between genders. These findings provide implications for gender-targeted interventions in college mental health education.